Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2003-01-21 PC minutesVillage of Plainfield Planning Commission Record of Minutes Date: January 21, 2003 Location: Village Hall Early Session An early discussion regarding detention and retention ponds took place before the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting . The early discussion began at 6:30pm. Ms. Sheetz introduced Duane Linden as presenter for the discussion. Steve Amann made a few comments regarding the differences between detention and retention ponds before Mr. Linden made his comments. According to Mr. Amann, the purpose of a detention pond is to slow down the flow of run -off, but does not hold water indefinitely. Run -off water enters the pond via several large pipes, and filter through one or several smaller pipes. Hence, the detention pond onl y detains water. Conversely, a retention pond is designed to hold a certain amount of water indefinitely. The only way water can leave the pond is through evaporation or seepage into the ground. Mr. Amann then guided the commission through a drawing t hat illustrated the natural function of water flow and the formation of ponds. He also used a hydrograph that showed the rate of run -off versus the rate of release from detention ponds. Commissioner Henry asked who makes sure any given detention or reten tion pond can handle the flow rate. Mr. Amann said that the Village Engineer’s office does. Mr. Amann said that there are three types of detention ponds: wet -bottom, dry -bottom, and underground. Duane Linden provided the commission with a historical con text to the use of detention and retention ponds: In the 1950s, flooding was very common on the south side of Chicago. So, by the 1970s it was decided that something had to be done to prevent the flooding and detention ponds were chosen as the method. Ov er the years, the land space requirement for detention areas has increased from 10% to, in some areas, as high as 48% or the total development area. Mr. Linden also spoke to the issue of concern regarding mosquitoes, saying that they are not necessarily m ore of a problem in a wet pond than in a dry pond – mosquitoes also reproduce in cut grass, a situation that often occurs in dry ponds. Commissioner Kachel asked if ponds were made to be continually aerated, wouldn’t that solve the problem? Mr. Linden said that ponds like that would probably only exist in large developments. Steve Amann said that we are trying to develop systems that incorporate “fore -bays”, which are tiered dips that trap the sediment in the run -off before it gets to the main basin of the detention pond. Mr. Linden noted that geese are another issue for the health of ponds. Several methods of preventing geese from coming to ponds were discussed. The early session meeting concluded at 7:00pm. (Planning Commission Regular Meeting) Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:13pm. (The Zoning Board of Appeals met immediately prior to this meeting.) Roll Call Present: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Anderson, Sobkoviak Absent: Library Di strict, School District, Fire Protection District, Park District Minutes The January 7 th , 2003 meeting were amended to reflect Commissioner Anderson’s presence. Old Business CASE NO.: 1007 -110602.SPR FLANDER’S COURT Request: Site Plan Review Location : 405 W. Main Street Applicant: Dunn, Martin & Miller, LTD Commenced: 7:16pm Mr. Garrigan gave the staff report. Commissioner Schinderle asked a clarifying question of Mr. Garrigan. Commissioner Henry asked if stipulation 3 in staff’s recommendation cou ld be stricken. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested that maybe it would be better to just leave it in. Commissioner Kachel said that we are changing a historical site. This needs to be addressed before we approve or deny this plan. Chairman Sobkoviak asked St eve Amann if he had any concerns, to which Mr. Amann replied that he did not. The petitioner, Randy Miller, rose to address the Commission. We want to save this building; we are proposing to move it 300 feet to the west. What we would like to do is to p reserve this historical aspect of Plainfield as well as add to the look of Plainfield with the construction of our new office. Commissioner Manning asked Mr. Miller what will happen to the building after it is moved. Mr. Miller said that they plan to ren t it out. Commissioner Anderson asked if anyone has given an estimate as to the worthiness of moving this structure. Commissioner Kachel asked if the Historical Society had involved itself or been contacted. Mr. Miller said that they offered to donate t he building to the Village, but have not yet been given a reply. Commissioner Schinderle said that there should be a stipulation added that states this building shall not be torn down. Commissioner Henry said I will not vote yes without more assurances t hat I’ve gotten tonight that the building will be preserved. Chairman Sobkoviak asked which stipulations have been satisfied. Mr. Miller addressed his comments to Commissioner Henry, saying I don’t know how else to assure you other than to promise that t his building will not be torn down. It has been put in writing several times. Chairman Sobkoviak opened the meeting up to public comment at this time. Carl Bryant asked if the structure will fit at the new location with the setbacks and everything. I h ave a concern about the building being moved. Brian Bus , of the Preservation Society, said that he would not like to see this building moved. We should move slowly with this. Ron Swalwell , a Village Trustee, said that the Village Board has never seen an y letter from Mr. Miller. We need to deal with the historical aspect of this project first. This should be continued to allow the Board to discuss. Mike Lambert made several comments: - The Historical Society has, in fact, looked at this. - Some neighbors i n the area of the proposed destination of the building have expressed concerns that they do not want a house in that lot. - Moving a house does cause some damage to the structure. - At the Village’s request, this corner was brought into design guidelines. As such, I’m not sure that this building fits with the character of what the Village is looking for in this area. A newer structure might be more appropriate. (Which is what the petitioner is proposing.) - 372 people have signed a petition expressing their wi sh to preserve the historical buildings in the community. - I would suggest that if we move forward with this project, the two plans should be tied together. Commissioner Manning asked if Mr. Miller had any responses. Mr. Miller said that he is taken aback by Mr. Bryant’s comments that he should preserve the house when Mr. Bryant just tore one down. Also, our law office is willing to donate the house to the Village. Ron Swalwell said that the Board needs to have the opportunity to discuss Mr. Miller’s off er. Commissioner Manning asked Mr. Miller if he sent a letter to the mayor. Mr. Miller said that he did in September. Mr. Kachel said to Mr. Miller that we understand that everything you are saying is said in good faith, but we need to allow more discus sion. Commissioner Schinderle asked Commissioner Kachel if he thought it is realistic to think that the Trustees would make a decision in two weeks. Commissioner Manning asked why don’t we send the case to the Board. We don’t have the authority to decid e some of these issues. Commissioner Gehrke noted that the issue of the movement of the building was not part of the discussion tonight – only the site plan for the proposed replacement building was relevant to tonight’s discussion. Commissioner Henry sa id that it is the purpose of this Commission to define how the look of the Village should be. Commissioner Gehrke moved to recommend approval of the proposed site plan, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Villag e Engineer 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District 3. Submission of a revised site plan showing the proposed parking lot and access drive redesigned to comply with Village code prior to review by the Village Board 4. Submissio n of revised architectural elevations for the proposed structure that show the new window configuration of the east elevation and detail the interaction of the basement windows with the ground 5. Submission of a revised landscape plan that reflects the altere d parking lot and access drive designs prior to review by the Village Board 6. Submission of a plan for the adequate screening of the parking lot, preferably through the addition of sufficient landscaping and a 30” high masonry knee wall surrounding the parki ng lot to screen views from Main Street and Route 59 7. Relocation of the proposed dumpster to a masonry enclosure at the northwest corner of the proposed parking lot and immediately adjacent to the proposed structure. 8. The current building on the site shall n ot be demolished. Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Commissioners Gehrke, Manning, Schinderel Nay: Commissioners Kachel, Henry, Anderson, Sobkoviak The motion fails 3:4. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested making a motion to deny approval of the site plan. Commissioner Schinderle moved to deny approval. Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Manning, Schinderle, Anderson Nay: Henry, Ge hrke, Sobkoviak Abstain: Kachel The motion to deny fails 3:3:1. No recommendation is passed. New Business CASE NO.: 1008 -110702.FP THE CROSSINGS AT WOLF CREEK, UNIT 2 Request: Final Plat Location: North of 119 th Street, ¼ west of Route 59 Applicant: C ENTEX Homes Commenced: 8:25pm Mr. Garrigan gave the staff report. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if Steve Amann had any comments. Mr. Amann said he did not. Kevin Stowe of Centex Homes said we agree with staff’s report and accept their recommendation. Chair man Sobkoviak opened the meeting up to public comment at this time. No one from the public wished to comment. Commissioner Gehrke asked a question about the floodplain. Commissioner Henry moved to recommend approval subject to the following stipulations : 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Fire Protection District 3. The proposed street identified as “Crossings Drive” on the plat is renamed “Heritage meadows Drive” to reflect its revised alignment 4. Creation of a Dormant Special Service Area (DSSA) prior to the releasing of the final plat Commissioner Schinderle seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Anderson, Sobkov iak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. CASE NO.: 1010 -112702.FP DAYFIELD SUBDIVISION Request: Final Plat Location: Northwest of Route 30 and 143 rd Street Applicant: Clayton Olson Commenced: 8:28pm Ms. Sheetz gave the staff report. Commissioner Manning asked a clarifying question. Commissioner Manning asked what the character of the storm water management system. Steve Amann said that there will be a wet -bottom detention pond. Paul Mitchell, representing the applicant, addressed the commissio n. We have only one minor issue. It is very difficult to supply a Statement of Intent and Agreement (SIA) when we won’t be developing the future use. The developer will be subjected to the ordinances of the Village. We aren’t trying to evade it, it’s j ust that it is hard for us to say with any specificity what the use will be. Commissioner Manning asked staff if the residential and commercial sections of the project could be separated since the applicant wants to start with the residential. Ms. Sheetz said that the applicant knew the requirements of the PUD at the time, and notice was given a month ago regarding this issue. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if this is something the Commission could allow staff to deal with. This doesn’t seem to be something t hat we need to deal with directly. Commissioner Manning said that this requirement seems excessively bureaucratic. I will support your suggestion, but I don’t think it is necessary to include this as a requirement. Commissioner Manning moved to recommen d approval of the final plat for Dayfield Subdivision subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District 3. Subject to the stipulations of the Preliminary Plat, approved April 1, 2002 4. Enactment of a Dormant Special Service Area prior to release of the final plat 5. A satisfactory Statement of Intent and Agreement must be prepared for the Commercial Parcel prior to release of the final plat 6. The Statement of Intent and Agreement shall be recorded with the final plat 7. Architectural renderings and landscape plans shall be submitted in accordance with the Design Guidelines attached to the Annexation Agreement (Ord. 2137, Doc # R2002120438) for the ide ntified key lots (lots 14,21,37,72,89,106,110, and 139) at the time of building permit application for said lots 8. Add lot 14 in the access restrictions for Meadow Lane on the final plat 9. Landscape easement designation will be made on the Final Plat Commissi oner Henry seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Henry, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Anderson, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 7:0. CASE NO.: 1014 -121302.SPR HOME STAR BANK Request: Site Plan Review Location: Southeast corner of Route 30 and 143 rd Street Applicant: New Ground Resources, Inc. Commenced: 8:52pm Mr. Drayna gave the staff report. Commissioner Schinderle asked Dale Drayna if we know what will be going in to the south. James Burt and Mark Argeline fielded questions from the Commission, and Mr. Argeline mentioned that Home Star Bank has actually been in Plainfield for over 2 years. He thanked the Commission for this opportunity. Commissioner Schinderle moved to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review for lot 3 of the Crossroads Business Center subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer 2. Compliance with the requirements of the Plainfield Fire Protection District 3. Incorporate side walks along the east side of Route 30 as well as on the north side of Edwards Avenue 4. Suply staff with material samples for the entire building and the trash enclosure 5. Provide a photometric plan showing the lumens of each respective lighting fixture 6. Meet th e requirements of the Statement of Intent and Agreement once approved Commissioner Manning seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. Aye: Kachel, Gehrke, Schinderle, Manning, Sobkoviak Nay: None Abstain: Henry, Anderson T he motion is carried 5:0:2. Chairman Sobkoviak declared the meeting adjourned at 9:07pm. _________________ Respectfully submitted, Warren Lindsay Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.